Page 3 of 15

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 00:10:35
by ennui2
MonteQuest wrote:I'm pretty sure perpetuating overshoot--even with renewables--isn't constructive. But it will be good to have some around after the population crash, no? :)


And so you expose your backstop position. "Die off is a good thing anyway!"

Image

Glad the old dispassionate Malthusian Monte is alive and well despite your debt-bomb talk.

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 00:19:18
by MonteQuest
ennui2 wrote:And so you expose your backstop position. "Die off is a good thing anyway!"


No. It's just not smart to pour gasoline on a fire you are trying to put out.

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 00:24:13
by ennui2
MonteQuest wrote:No. It's just not smart to pour gasoline on a fire you are trying to put out.


Well, if humans are the problem, there's faster ways to 'solve' it than waiting for Mother Nature (hence the Hugo Drax image). That's where all this discussion kind of comes round full circle. If you really want to see a die-off, who really cares about debt-bombs anyway? It's just part of the necessary slide that primes the gates for die-off. Why not welcome it?

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 00:37:20
by onlooker
I think your underlying assertion Ennui is that we doomers are invested emotionally into the narrative of doom. That is not true. We are simply observing and making conclusions about those observations. In regards to Monte's seemingly wishing for a die-off well I will not speak for him but my understanding is that he simply alludes to the fact that anything at this point that is done to stave off the correction to overshoot, will make the die-off that much worse in the future. Trying to somehow put off die-off now will probably mean greater die-off in the future. Meaning going deeper into overshoot.

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 01:01:24
by MonteQuest
onlooker wrote:In regards to Monte's seemingly wishing for a die-off well I will not speak for him but my understanding is that he simply alludes to the fact that anything at this point that is done to stave off the correction to overshoot, will make the die-off that much worse in the future. Trying to somehow put off die-off now will probably mean greater die-off in the future. Meaning going deeper into overshoot.


Spot on. Tu hablas mi idioma, mi amigo!,

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 01:42:25
by onlooker
Ya veo que es Castellano es otra cosa que tienes maestria de Monte.

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 03:10:00
by kublikhan
Compared to the domestic manufacturing scenario, the carbon footprint and the energy payback time are almost doubled in the overseas manufacturing scenario. The carbon footprint of the modules made in Spain (which has a cleaner grid than the average in Europe) is 37.3 and 31.8 gCO2e/kWh for mono-si and multi-si, respectively, while the energy payback times are 1.9 and 1.6 years. However, for the modules made in China, the carbon footprint is 72.2 and 69.2 gCO2e/kWh for mono-si and multi-si, respectively, while the energy payback times are 2.4 and 2.3 years.
Only the carbon payback is double, not the energy payback. The energy payback is only 25-50% larger. Quite a far cry from double.

MonteQuest wrote:But think about that. From 2009 to 2014, all the solar panels in the world, viewed as one large energy generating plant, did not generate any net energy or CO2-savings. Looks like we are going to have to relocate where we build and install these puppies.
That's because the factories are rapidly expanding production and the installed base was relatively small. The carbon debt of solar is all front loaded in it's manufacturing phase. But they will continue to produce carbon free power for the rest of their life. Nothing needs to be done on this front as the situation will correct itself. The installed base will continue to grow and age, racking up more carbon free electricity(or should I say "carbon debt already paid electricity"). Meanwhile, the growth rate of Solar PV will slow down. Nothing grows at such high growth rates forever.

peripato wrote:It's the worst of all possible worlds. We pump the carbon into the atmosphere instantly, whilst squandering FF's for a questionable outcome.
The worst of all possible worlds? I see it as the best. We are diverting carbon expenditures not into consuming the fossil fuels as a feedstock, which denies their use for any other purpose as it is a one shot affair. But instead are using that carbon to embody energy into a device that will produce electricity for decades to come. And we are making that carbon expenditure now, when it is cheap. If we wait to do this later when the FFs go into decline, we will face a double whammy of needing more FF expenditure to ramp up Solar PV and at the same time supplies get tighter because of declining production. If that were not enough of a reason, that embodied energy is still present in the silicon at the end of the panel's life. It doesn't just disappear into the ether. It can be recycled into the next generation of Solar PV panels for a tiny fraction of the original energy cost.

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 03:35:32
by peripato
kublikhan wrote:The worst of all possible worlds? I see it as the best.

Once BAU comes to end, probably as a result of financial collapse, all manufacturing, trade, mining, recycling etc. will come to a halt since these activities rely on a) massive debt issues being raised to finance them and after the crash financialisation will be extinct, plus b) an advanced technological society, which will no longer exist since any complex activities of the order that require massive debt issues to finance will no longer be possible.

So yes, it's the worst of all possible world's. Whoever is left after collapse just get's to live with the consequences of this and all other human f#ckups. But I guess you already knew that.

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 04:26:22
by kublikhan
peripato wrote:Once BAU comes to end, probably as a result of financial collapse, all manufacturing, trade, mining, recycling etc. will come to a halt since these activities rely on a) massive debt issues being raised to finance them and after the crash financialisation will be extinct, plus b) an advanced technological society, which will no longer exist since any complex activities of the order that require massive debt issues to finance will no longer be possible.
I disagree. There have been many collapses in history. And yet manufacturing, trade, mining, etc continued after the collapse. Activity levels may be curtailed, but they will not come to a halt. I would wager scrap collection/recycling will increase in important compared to today as new material entering the system starts to shrink.

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 05:59:57
by peripato
kublikhan wrote:
peripato wrote:Once BAU comes to end, probably as a result of financial collapse, all manufacturing, trade, mining, recycling etc. will come to a halt since these activities rely on a) massive debt issues being raised to finance them and after the crash financialisation will be extinct, plus b) an advanced technological society, which will no longer exist since any complex activities of the order that require massive debt issues to finance will no longer be possible.
I disagree. There have been many collapses in history. And yet manufacturing, trade, mining, etc continued after the collapse. Activity levels may be curtailed, but they will not come to a halt. I would wager scrap collection/recycling will increase in important compared to today as new material entering the system starts to shrink.

Yeah, well we never faced global overshoot before either, so no, I beg to differ. This time, it is different. Besides what good is a bit of scrap collection and recycling amongst bedraggled survivors going to achieve? Kickstart global civilisation? With what? Wall St Mk2?

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 06:31:19
by Ulenspiegel
Ah, yes, again the "this time is different" theme. Is it really so hard to accept that muddling through is for many countries an option?

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 07:51:33
by peripato
Ulenspiegel wrote:Ah, yes, again the "this time is different" theme. Is it really so hard to accept that muddling through is for many countries an option?

Ok, let's see them muddle through the consequences of overshoot.

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 14:09:30
by MonteQuest
onlooker wrote:Ya veo que es Castellano es otra cosa que tienes maestria de Monte.


Aun no. Pero.. Yo aprendo una nueva palabra cada día!

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 14:17:38
by MonteQuest
kublikhan wrote: There have been many collapses in history. And yet manufacturing, trade, mining, etc continued after the collapse. Activity levels may be curtailed, but they will not come to a halt.


As our dependence shifts to such resources as low-grade ores, rock, seawater, and the sun, the conversion of energy into useful work will require ever more intricate technical activity, which would be impossible in the absence of a variety of complex machines and their products--all of which are the result of our intricate industrial civilization, and which would be impossible without it. Thus, if a machine civilization were to stop functioning as the result of some catastrophe, it is difficult to see how man would again be able to start along the path of industrialization with the resources that would then be available to him. Harrison Brown 1954

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 14:19:21
by MonteQuest
Ulenspiegel wrote:Ah, yes, again the "this time is different" theme. Is it really so hard to accept that muddling through is for many countries an option?


Let's see them muddle through debt to GDP of 313%.

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 15:20:54
by kublikhan
Dartnell seems a bit more optimistic than Brown:

The Industrial Revolution was powered largely by fossil energy. Most of these easily accessible fossil energy sources —deposits of coal, oil, and natural gas—have now been mined toward depletion. Without access to such readily available energy, how could a civilization following ours haul itself through a second industrial revolution? The solution, as we'll see, will lie in an early adoption of renewable energy sources and careful recycling of assets—sustainable development will likely be forced on the next civilization out of sheer necessity: a green reboot. In the process, unfamiliar combinations of technologies will emerge over time We will take a look at examples of where a recovering society is likely to take a different trajectory in its development—the path not traveled—as well as utilizing technological solutions that for us have fallen by the wayside. To us, Civilization 2.0 might look like a mishmash of technologies from different eras, not unlike the genre of fiction known as steampunk. Steampunk narratives are set in an alternative history that has followed a different pattern of development and is often characterized by a fusion of Victorian technology with other applications. A post-apocalyptic reboot with very different rates of progress in separate fields of science and technology is likely to lead to such an anachronistic patchwork.

We'll start with the basics and see how you can provide the fundamental elements of a comfortable life for yourself after the Fall: sufficient food and clean water, clothes and building materials, energy and essential medicines. There will be a number of immediate concerns for the survivors: cultivable crops must be gathered from farmland and seed caches before they die and are lost; diesel can be rendered from biofuel crops to keep engines running until the machinery fails, and parts can be scavenged to reestablish a local power grid. We'll look at how best to cannibalize components and scavenge materials from the detritus of the dead civilization: the post-apocalyptic world will demand ingenuity in repurposing, tinkering, and jury-rigging. Once the essentials are in place, I'll explain how to reinstate agriculture and safely preserve a stockpile of food, and how plant and animal fibers can be turned into clothes. Materials such as paper, ceramic pottery, brick, glass, and wrought iron are today so commonplace that they are considered prosaic and boring—but how could you actually make them if you needed to? Trees yield an enormous amount of remarkably useful stuff: from timber material for construction to charcoal for purifying drinking water, as well as providing a fiercely burning solid fuel. A whole range of crucial compounds can be baked out of wood, and even ashes contain a substance (called potash) needed for making essential items such as soap and glass, as well as producing one of the ingredients of gunpowder. With basic know-how you can extract a great deal of other critically useful substances from your natural surroundings—soda, lime, ammonia, acids, and alcohol—and start a post-apocalyptic chemical industry. And as your capabilities recover, the quick-start guide will help the development of explosives suitable for mining and for demolishing the carcasses of ancient buildings, as well as the production of artificial fertilizer, and of the light-sensitive silver compounds used in photography. In later chapters we'll see how to relearn medicine, harness mechanical power, master the generation and storage of electricity, and assemble a simple radio set.

The hope is that even in the maw of a cataclysmic shock the thread of civilization is not broken and the surviving community does not regress too far or stagnate; that the core of our society can be preserved; and that these crucial kernels of knowledge, nurtured in the post-apocalyptic world, will flourish once again. This is the blueprint for a rebooting civilization—but also a primer on the fundamentals of our own.

The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Civilization in the Aftermath of a Cataclysm - Lewis Dartnell 2014

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 15:53:01
by Pops
I donated all my books but I may need to get that one, Kub don't see it at my library. Thanks

http://the-knowledge.org/en-gb/

Re: A Critical Discussion the Limits to Renewable Energy Pt

Unread postPosted: Wed 13 Jan 2016, 15:57:12
by MonteQuest
kublikhan wrote: Dartnell seems a bit more optimistic than Brown:

The Industrial Revolution was powered largely by fossil energy. Most of these easily accessible fossil energy sources —deposits of coal, oil, and natural gas—have now been mined toward depletion. Without access to such readily available energy, how could a civilization following ours haul itself through a second industrial revolution? The solution, as we'll see, will lie in an early adoption of renewable energy sources and careful recycling of assets—sustainable development will likely be forced on the next civilization out of sheer necessity: a green reboot.


What utter hogwash. The population's existence was also powered by fossil energy. He doesn't mention the severe population contraction. McGyver skills will be needed to just survive, much less rebuild a second industrial revolution.

We'll look at how best to cannibalize components and scavenge materials from the detritus of the dead civilization: the post-apocalyptic world will demand ingenuity in repurposing, tinkering, and jury-rigging.

A Mad Max scenario hosted by the scattered remnants of the apocalypse.